CABBAGE PRICES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 71, 21 September 1943, Page 7

CABBAGE PRICES

TRIBUNAL'S STATEMENT

The statement published yesterday from the Hutt Valley market growers that "housewives who may be inclined to blame the growers for the high prices of spring cabbages are entitled to know that the Government, and not the growers, is at fault," has been replied to by the Price Tribunal as follows:—

"A retailer who sells spring cabbages at prices which give him more than the 66 2-3 per cent, margin on cost allowed by the price order is breaking the law, even though the price he charges is no more than the maximum of 4fd a lb set out in the price order. That maximum price is merely the upper limit which the retail price cannot exceed, and retailers are required by the price order to sell at prices lower than that maximum if the cost, plus 66 2-3 per cent., works out at less than 4|d a lb." The tribunal emphasised that the price order was designed to protect the interests of all parties concerned — growers, retailers, and consumers. There was an obligation on all the parties, consumers included, to see that the terms of price orders were observed.

"The price order provides for a maximum wholesale price of 27s a cwt and for a maximum retail price of 66 2-3 per cent, on costs into retailers' shop or 42 a lb, whichever is the lower," the tribunal's statement continues. "There are times when, owing to a combination of circumstances, the actual wholesale prices realised by growers are below the maximum defined in the order. This has been the position recently, and it is known that retailers have been able to buy at rates substantially lower than the price order wholesale maximum. This advantage, the growers claim, has not been passed on to the consumer's, as should have been the case had the terms of the price order been complied with. The allegation is that retailers have been charging the public the maximum price of 43d a lb instead of the actual cost into s,tore, plus 66 2-3 per cent. ■ "This is clearly a breach of the law, and, quite apart from taking appropriate action in the light of such evidence as is available against specific retailers, the tribunal is arranging to meet representatives of the retail trade to discuss generally the position, and the opportunity will then be taken to stress that, on no account, will departures from the terms of the price order be tolerated. The retailer is entitled to the fair rate of profit as defined, and any advantage which may accrue through the operation cf wholesale prices at a level lower than that defined in the order must, without fail, be passed on to the consumer. "At times it has been, said that the tribunal has been too hard in bringing actions aaainst retailers. But every case is reviewed on its merits. Now the Hutt Valley market gardeners accuse the tribunal of slackness in fulfilling its obligations. It must be emphasised that where the evidence establishes the fact of gross circum-. vention of the price order, then the necessary legal action will be taken through the courts."